Explain this to me?

This was posted on a race website. I don't understand what they are saying. Is he saying a 2.5 hour run is enough for marathon training? Can someone put this in terms my, evidently, 4th grade mind can understand? Or tell me what's wrong w/ this logic, if it's incorrect. lol. I still plan on sticking to my plan, which includes 18 & 20 milers and will have me running at least 4 hours, but I'd like to try to understand what this is saying. Thank you!

"So a lot of people ask me during their marathon training about the "20 mile long run" A lot of marathoners think they need to run 20 miles or 22 miles before the race. My response: Marathon training is all about the cumulative fatigue on your legs before your taper. If you run for time, you are more likely going to have more quality training without slogging through miles with bad form. Miles...are a great way to stay on track for the week, but running 3 hours plus can have more negative effects on your training than keeping it 2:30:00 for your long run. Where did I come up with 2:30:00? Your body must learn to spare glycogen (it's stored fuel), metabolize fat as fuel, and develop the strength and endurance necessary to complete the 26.2 miles in one piece. By running 2:30:00 you are gaining those benefits, and going longer will do more damage than good. Tom Clifford USATF Level 2 Coach for Without Limits Coaching and Event Director "

This was posted on a race website. I don't understand what they are saying. Is he saying a 2.5 hour run is enough for marathon training? Can someone put this in terms my, evidently, 4th grade mind can understand? Or tell me what's wrong w/ this logic, if it's incorrect. lol. I still plan on sticking to my plan, which includes 18 & 20 milers and will have me running at least 4 hours, but I'd like to try to understand what this is saying. Thank you!

"So a lot of people ask me during their marathon training about the "20 mile long run" A lot of marathoners think they need to run 20 miles or 22 miles before the race. My response: Marathon training is all about the cumulative fatigue on your legs before your taper. If you run for time, you are more likely going to have more quality training without slogging through miles with bad form. Miles...are a great way to stay on track for the week, but running 3 hours plus can have more negative effects on your training than keeping it 2:30:00 for your long run. Where did I come up with 2:30:00? Your body must learn to spare glycogen (it's stored fuel), metabolize fat as fuel, and develop the strength and endurance necessary to complete the 26.2 miles in one piece. By running 2:30:00 you are gaining those benefits, and going longer will do more damage than good. Tom Clifford USATF Level 2 Coach for Without Limits Coaching and Event Director "

He is talking about "3 hours plus" for your long run. And yes, 4 hours long run could be quite damaging for new runners, but so is the 5-6 hours actual marathon. And yes, 2.5 hours for the LR can be enough if you run enough mileage during your running week. Actually, some runners whom I know do not run more than 2 hours for any of their runs - but the thing is that their weekly mileage is pretty high. But again - there are so MANY MANY ways to train for a marathon...

This was posted on a race website. I don't understand what they are saying. Is he saying a 2.5 hour run is enough for marathon training? Can someone put this in terms my, evidently, 4th grade mind can understand? Or tell me what's wrong w/ this logic, if it's incorrect. lol. I still plan on sticking to my plan, which includes 18 & 20 milers and will have me running at least 4 hours, but I'd like to try to understand what this is saying. Thank you!

"So a lot of people ask me during their marathon training about the "20 mile long run" A lot of marathoners think they need to run 20 miles or 22 miles before the race. My response: Marathon training is all about the cumulative fatigue on your legs before your taper. If you run for time, you are more likely going to have more quality training without slogging through miles with bad form. Miles...are a great way to stay on track for the week, but running 3 hours plus can have more negative effects on your training than keeping it 2:30:00 for your long run. Where did I come up with 2:30:00? Your body must learn to spare glycogen (it's stored fuel), metabolize fat as fuel, and develop the strength and endurance necessary to complete the 26.2 miles in one piece. By running 2:30:00 you are gaining those benefits, and going longer will do more damage than good. Tom Clifford USATF Level 2 Coach for Without Limits Coaching and Event Director "

He is talking about "3 hours plus" for your long run. And yes, 4 hours long run could be quite damaging for new runners, but so is the 5-6 hours actual marathon. And yes, 2.5 hours for the LR can be enough if you run enough mileage during your running week. Actually, some runners whom I know do not run more than 2 hours for any of their runs - but the thing is that their weekly mileage is pretty high. But again - there are so MANY MANY ways to train for a marathon...

Well, let's see. Why is he assuming that people slog through long runs with bad form? And is the 2:30 maximum time applicable to all marathon goals? It seems a little strange to claim that a person who wants to run, say, a 4-hour marathon will be sufficiently prepared - either in terms of physical resiliance or glycogen storage - by running less than two-thirds of that distance.

Well, let's see. Why is he assuming that people slog through long runs with bad form? And is the 2:30 maximum time applicable to all marathon goals? It seems a little strange to claim that a person who wants to run, say, a 4-hour marathon will be sufficiently prepared - either in terms of physical resiliance or glycogen storage - by running less than two-thirds of that distance.

Well, that's kind of what Beginners Hansons plan does - no more than 16 miles runs. And to me that approach of more evenly distributing the mileage (peaking at 50-55) through out the week makes more sense than running Hal Higdon's Novice 1 with peaking at 40 miles per week and running a 20 miler. I agree, 16 miler is still much longer than 2:30 this guy is talking about, but the difference for beginners in running 16 or 20 miles is dramatic.

t seems a little strange to claim that a person who wants to run, say, a 4-hour marathon will be sufficiently prepared - either in terms of physical resiliance or glycogen storage - by running less than two-thirds of that distance.

The Hansons "standard" plans cap their long runs at 16M - which when run around 9:20 pace would correspond to a 2h30 run. Many people have done very well with these plans; assuming that you run enough during the week there is no reason to push the long runs too long. Many of the plans that overemphasize long runs are beginners plans.

I coached two gals to run a 4:59 marathon. Both were newer runners, but had recent a recent half marathon under their belt (2:40). Their longest run began with a 10 minute walk to run with drills, followed by 3 hour run/walk (10:1), and a 10 minute walk cool down. Total mileage was about 18.

The idea was, beyond 3 hours it just became too much stress on them and the risk was not worth the reward. Plus I wanted them to recover in a reasonable amount of time and be ready to run a little more during the week. We did a lot of form and strength drills.

All the four hour runs in the world wouldn't have increased their "glycogen storage". Now if the goal is to "spare" your glycogen, then you are training more like an ultra runner than a marathoner.

They went through the first half in 2:29 and finished in 4:56, a negative split and they beat their goal, first time out. The best part is they raced one another the last 50m, laughing as they crossed the finish line.

You can train slow to run slow and burn fat if you are only concerned about how far you can run, or you can train to run faster and run on glycogen, but the clock becomes your nemesis.

I admit I'm baffled. I wonder if there is data on the average finishing times for runners who use conservative plans like this one.

Though, I totally understand that after looking at Higdon Novice plan, the Hansons Beginner will not look as a Beginner plan at all .

Are you daring me to look? It won't work. I'm not looking.

// OK, I looked. Man, I really have to wonder about these guys' integrity. I suppose they mean well, but why is it considered verboten to say to people who don't yet have the running chops that with all due respect, they aren't ready, that the marathon will always be there, that they will have a much better experience if they wait a year or two and build a solid running base.

I admit I'm baffled. I wonder if there is data on the average finishing times for runners who use conservative plans like this one.

Though, I totally understand that after looking at Higdon Novice plan, the Hansons Beginner will not look as a Beginner plan at all .

Are you daring me to look? It won't work. I'm not looking.

// OK, I looked. Man, I really have to wonder about these guys' integrity. I suppose they mean well, but why is it considered verboten to say to people who don't yet have the running chops that with all due respect, they aren't ready, that the marathon will always be there, that they will have a much better experience if they wait a year or two and build a solid running base.

Well, tell you the truth, I was always wondering the same way about newbie runners who run marathons after training with Higdon Novice plans, or even better - with FIRST or Run Less Run Faster plans. It looks to me as an extremely "brave" thing to do - to run a marathon of 26 miles after you only ran 30-35 miles dispersed through the whole week.

As for Hansons, I don't know, I didn't use Hansons as my first plan, but I used another plan which peaked at 55 miles for my first marathon and was totally fine - I ran for 3 months before starting training for the marathon averaging 25-30 miles (preparing for a half).

Running marathons are hard, running hard for 2 or even 3 hours hurts. Running hard for 4 or 5 hours REALLY hurts. Ask an elite marathon runner, they think running any more than a few hours is insane. Few people on the planet could "race" that long.

I guess they are taking the responsible route by telling people to wait. Mixing words like "beginner" and "running 4-5 hours" just sounds like a recipe for injury.

That being said I know plenty of people who enjoy long slow marathons and have done it for years. "More bang for their buck." They say.

I admit I'm baffled. I wonder if there is data on the average finishing times for runners who use conservative plans like this one.

Though, I totally understand that after looking at Higdon Novice plan, the Hansons Beginner will not look as a Beginner plan at all .

Are you daring me to look? It won't work. I'm not looking.

// OK, I looked. Man, I really have to wonder about these guys' integrity. I suppose they mean well, but why is it considered verboten to say to people who don't yet have the running chops that with all due respect, they aren't ready, that the marathon will always be there, that they will have a much better experience if they wait a year or two and build a solid running base.

Well, tell you the truth, I was always wondering the same way about newbie runners who run marathons after training with Higdon Novice plans, or even better - with FIRST or Run Less Run Faster plans. It looks to me as an extremely "brave" thing to do - to run a marathon of 26 miles after you only ran 30-35 miles dispersed through the whole week.

As for Hansons, I don't know, I didn't use Hansons as my first plan, but I used another plan which peaked at 55 miles for my first marathon and was totally fine - I ran for 3 months before starting training for the marathon averaging 25-30 miles (preparing for a half).

Are your questioning the runners or the Hansons people. If its the Hansons people I'll make sure to pass it along.

Hansons is a big plan around me; maybe because I go to a group run at one of their stores 1x a week. I have friends who were running their first and 2nd marathons respectively this fall one following a typical beginner plan one did Hansons both were aiming to finish in the 5 hour range. Both finished on goal. The one of the Hansons felt stronger going into the race.

If you want to never run, never start because once you do you'll never stop.

I admit I'm baffled. I wonder if there is data on the average finishing times for runners who use conservative plans like this one.

Though, I totally understand that after looking at Higdon Novice plan, the Hansons Beginner will not look as a Beginner plan at all .

Are you daring me to look? It won't work. I'm not looking.

// OK, I looked. Man, I really have to wonder about these guys' integrity. I suppose they mean well, but why is it considered verboten to say to people who don't yet have the running chops that with all due respect, they aren't ready, that the marathon will always be there, that they will have a much better experience if they wait a year or two and build a solid running base.

Well, tell you the truth, I was always wondering the same way about newbie runners who run marathons after training with Higdon Novice plans, or even better - with FIRST or Run Less Run Faster plans. It looks to me as an extremely "brave" thing to do - to run a marathon of 26 miles after you only ran 30-35 miles dispersed through the whole week.

As for Hansons, I don't know, I didn't use Hansons as my first plan, but I used another plan which peaked at 55 miles for my first marathon and was totally fine - I ran for 3 months before starting training for the marathon averaging 25-30 miles (preparing for a half).

Are your questioning the runners or the Hansons people. If its the Hansons people I'll make sure to pass it along.

Hansons is a big plan around me; maybe because I go to a group run at one of their stores 1x a week. I have friends who were running their first and 2nd marathons respectively this fall one following a typical beginner plan one did Hansons both were aiming to finish in the 5 hour range. Both finished on goal. The one of the Hansons felt stronger going into the race.

I am not questioning Hansons people because I used Hansons structured plan for my last 4 marathons and every time I PR-ed. I am questioning people who trying to run a marathon peaking at 35-40 miles a week. Basically, they averaging marathon's distance during their weekly training and after that they are trying to cover that distance in one attempt.

Any training plan you see published is a compromise. People using such programs are not moving to the marathon distance after 7-8 years of increasingly competitive XC or track running, having slowly built up thousands and thousands of miles of base and doing high level speed work. Most are people who have decided to chase a goal of running a marathon.

Those of you who have done those years of preparation and really ARE properly trained to race marathons can rightly scoff at compromise. For the rest of you I'll say that maximizing long term average weekly mileage you run while staying healthy and doing a little bit of hard running will be your best training. Running 4 hour long runs may NOT be your best way to accomplish this.

Really long runs often beat you up more because by the end you are tired and your form tends to fall apart. Slower recovery and slower fitness gains are a good possibility even if you manage to stay injury free. Choosing a plan with more miles but shorter long runs is a very reasonable compromise.

The long run magic starts at 90 minutes. You should try to run at least 2 runs per week this long, in addition to a longer run of 2-2.5 hours on the weekend. The leaves 2-3 days per week for 60 minute runs with long intervals or a tempo run segment.

The long run magic starts at 90 minutes. You should try to run at least 2 runs per week this long, in addition to a longer run of 2-2.5 hours on the weekend. The leaves 2-3 days per week for 60 minute runs with long intervals or a tempo run segment.

Nonsense. Everyone knows that its the fourth mile out of every seven miles that counts and has the magic. That's why on my 20 mile runs, I'm actually running mile 4 out of every seven and just skipping miles1-3 and 5-7. So, technically, I've run 140 miles, but skipped 120 of them.

See, I can pick random numbers and determine that they are what matters in a training program.

I admit I'm baffled. I wonder if there is data on the average finishing times for runners who use conservative plans like this one.

Though, I totally understand that after looking at Higdon Novice plan, the Hansons Beginner will not look as a Beginner plan at all .

Are you daring me to look? It won't work. I'm not looking.

// OK, I looked. Man, I really have to wonder about these guys' integrity. I suppose they mean well, but why is it considered verboten to say to people who don't yet have the running chops that with all due respect, they aren't ready, that the marathon will always be there, that they will have a much better experience if they wait a year or two and build a solid running base.

Well, tell you the truth, I was always wondering the same way about newbie runners who run marathons after training with Higdon Novice plans, or even better - with FIRST or Run Less Run Faster plans. It looks to me as an extremely "brave" thing to do - to run a marathon of 26 miles after you only ran 30-35 miles dispersed through the whole week.

As for Hansons, I don't know, I didn't use Hansons as my first plan, but I used another plan which peaked at 55 miles for my first marathon and was totally fine - I ran for 3 months before starting training for the marathon averaging 25-30 miles (preparing for a half).

Are your questioning the runners or the Hansons people. If its the Hansons people I'll make sure to pass it along.

Hansons is a big plan around me; maybe because I go to a group run at one of their stores 1x a week. I have friends who were running their first and 2nd marathons respectively this fall one following a typical beginner plan one did Hansons both were aiming to finish in the 5 hour range. Both finished on goal. The one of the Hansons felt stronger going into the race.

I am not questioning Hansons people because I used Hansons structured plan for my last 4 marathons and every time I PR-ed. I am questioning people who trying to run a marathon peaking at 35-40 miles a week. Basically, they averaging marathon's distance during their weekly training and after that they are trying to cover that distance in one attempt.

Not impossible. My experience is close. In the 12 weeks prior to my first (and best) marathon I averaged less than 40 miles per week - with one 60, two 45s, and all the rest about 35 (two were under 30).

I am questioning people who trying to run a marathon peaking at 35-40 miles a week. Basically, they averaging marathon's distance during their weekly training and after that they are trying to cover that distance in one attempt.

My first three marathons were run on 38-40 miles per week. I admit my times of 4:05/3:44/3:41 weren't sub 3, or even BQ times, but I finished in the top 1/3 of my age group (M50-54), ran each race, and continually improved. So, what are your questions?

The long run magic starts at 90 minutes. You should try to run at least 2 runs per week this long, in addition to a longer run of 2-2.5 hours on the weekend. The leaves 2-3 days per week for 60 minute runs with long intervals or a tempo run segment.

Nonsense. Everyone knows that its the fourth mile out of every seven miles that counts and has the magic. That's why on my 20 mile runs, I'm actually running mile 4 out of every seven and just skipping miles1-3 and 5-7. So, technically, I've run 140 miles, but skipped 120 of them.

See, I can pick random numbers and determine that they are what matters in a training program.

Darth, my number is certainly not random and corresponds to half marathon training run. It is a physiologic threshold, at least for me. It resulted in a 2:44 marathon 6 years ago.

I am not questioning Hansons people because I used Hansons structured plan for my last 4 marathons and every time I PR-ed. I am questioning people whotrying to run a marathon peaking at 35-40 miles a week.Basically, they averaging marathon's distance during their weekly training and after that they are trying to cover that distance in one attempt.

Not impossible. My experience is close. In the 12 weeks prior to my first (and best) marathon I averaged less than 40 miles per week - with one 60, two 45s, and all the rest about 35 (two were under 30).

We all know everything is possible and, of course, I am "statistically" speaking.

But I don't hear a runner averaging 55-60 miles asking "I missed my 20-miler - what should I do? what should I do now? Everything is lost...". But I hear that stuff from 30-35 miles per week runners all the time.

I am not questioning Hansons people because I used Hansons structured plan for my last 4 marathons and every time I PR-ed. I am questioning people whotrying to run a marathon peaking at 35-40 miles a week.Basically, they averaging marathon's distance during their weekly training and after that they are trying to cover that distance in one attempt.

Not impossible. My experience is close. In the 12 weeks prior to my first (and best) marathon I averaged less than 40 miles per week - with one 60, two 45s, and all the rest about 35 (two were under 30).

We all know everything is possible and, of course, I am "statistically" speaking.

But I don't hear a runner averaging 55-60 miles asking "I missed my 20-miler - what should I do? what should I do now? Everything is lost...". But I hear that stuff from 30-35 miles per week runners all the time.

IDK - it was a long time ago, but I think I obsessed more during training for my second marathon when I was averaging 60 with a peak of 80 than for the first.

I ran my first marathon on 17mpw with a peak week of 38 miles (which included a 26 mile run, with walk breaks - yep, Galloway) and had an enjoyable race. Not that I'd train that way again. But I was one and done, or so I had thought, and I did not have any lofty goals and so was happy to just run easy.

I ran my first using Higdon Novice 1, so peaked at 40 (may have run 41 or 42 that week, you know, to pad the mileage) and I ran the whole thing on a day that was about 84 when I finished with no cloud cover and my 2nd half was about 2 minutes slower than my first...so, basically even. I had a rewarding experience and it convinced me that I wanted to run more and try to improve.

My story is hardly unique. I could have pulled out 20 -25 other finishers that day who did long runs with me who had decent first marathons. I don't think we diminished the experience for anyone who trained peaking at 100 miles per week. And if we did, that's on them. Oh, and some of the people I trained with missed a long run or two. They did not die out on the course.

The long run magic starts at 90 minutes. You should try to run at least 2 runs per week this long, in addition to a longer run of 2-2.5 hours on the weekend. The leaves 2-3 days per week for 60 minute runs with long intervals or a tempo run segment.

Nonsense. Everyone knows that its the fourth mile out of every seven miles that counts and has the magic. That's why on my 20 mile runs, I'm actually running mile 4 out of every seven and just skipping miles1-3 and 5-7. So, technically, I've run 140 miles, but skipped 120 of them.

See, I can pick random numbers and determine that they are what matters in a training program.

Darth, my number is certainly not random and corresponds to half marathon training run. It is a physiologic threshold, at least for me. It resulted in a 2:44 marathon 6 years ago.

So, I trained with 3 runs per week longer than 90 minutes and ran a 5:24. Just because you were fast doesn't make 90 minutes a magic number.

Darth, my number is certainly not random and corresponds to half marathon training run. It is a physiologic threshold, at least for me. It resulted in a 2:44 marathon 6 years ago.

So, I trained with 3 runs per week longer than 90 minutes and ran a 5:24. Just because you were fast doesn't make 90 minutes a magic number.

+1. First there is no magic in marathon training, or running in general. Second, the claim that there's a "physiological threshold" of any duration at which "magic" occurs is insulting to the intelligence of this community and infuriating for those who've formally studied exercise physiology.

As for BrianLizard, if a training run of over three hours is too stressful for a given runner, should he/she be doing a marathon in the first place?

I totally agree, slower runners should be happy with running for 2-3 hours (a half), however when I express this opinion with 4, 5 even 7 hour marathon runners they often think I am being "elitist", and who am I to deny their right to say they ran a marathon. But people want the title and I see people using knee braces, orthotics, and popping ibuprofen to get it.

My opinion is they are being elitist and naive to think they have twice the endurance of some of the best athletes in the world.

Just my opinion, as I would rather see people run well for a lifetime rather than chase a single bragging right and end up broken.

He is my coach and he has my marathon times going down, I negitive split my last marathon by 90 sec! He also believes in two hard days most weeks also. He has a fairly large group of runners from a 36 old girl who ran 2:36 to over 5 hours people. Great group with a great coach he is also learning as he is only 30!

Darth, my number is certainly not random and corresponds to half marathon training run. It is a physiologic threshold, at least for me. It resulted in a 2:44 marathon 6 years ago.

So, I trained with 3 runs per week longer than 90 minutes and ran a 5:24. Just because you were fast doesn't make 90 minutes a magic number.

+1. First there is no magic in marathon training, or running in general. Second, the claim that there's a "physiological threshold" of any duration at which "magic" occurs is insulting to the intelligence of this community and infuriating for those who've formally studied exercise physiology.

As for BrianLizard, if a training run of over three hours is too stressful for a given runner, should he/she be doing a marathon in the first place?

I totally agree, slower runners should be happy with running for 2-3 hours (a half), however when I express this opinion with 4, 5 even 7 hour marathon runners they often think I am being "elitist", and who am I to deny their right to say they ran a marathon. But people want the title and I see people using knee braces, orthotics, and popping ibuprofen to get it.

My opinion is they are being elitist and naive to think they have twice the endurance of some of the best athletes in the world.

Just my opinion, as I would rather see people run well for a lifetime rather than chase a single bragging right and end up broken.

I'm a 4ish hour marathoner and I don't think I have twice the endurance of an elite. I think I run at a lower intensity and am slower and finish behind them. I do think that I have to think about nutrition and training in a different way than if I was running for closer to 2 hours than 4 hours. But I'm pretty sure that any of the elites could easily keep up with me and keep going a lot longer if they decided to jog along next to me during my next marathon. They'd probably get bored, tho.

Of course, I don't think 3 hour marathoners are jerks for thinking they have 50% more endurance than the worlds' elites. Because I don't think a 3 hour marathoner actually would go around bragging about the fact they took longer to complete a marathon than the world's elites and that means they must have better endurance.

Just last week I was talking to a new running acquaintance who is scheduled to do her first marathon on Feb. 28. IMO she's woefully underprepared, both physically and emotionally.

We were chatting about this and that and I mentioned that I knew some talented runners who after only a year or two in the sport cranked out first marathons at sub-3:15. She, who to date has one 2:09 half to her credit (and she said it was a death march), immediately responded that she was MUCH more impressed with her own performance in the half than theirs in the marathon. Following the logic that if it's harder, it's "better."

This was posted on a race website. I don't understand what they are saying. Is he saying a 2.5 hour run is enough for marathon training?

It's conditional. You don't need runs beyond this time/length if you've met these conditions. You can pick any arbitrary distance or time as the necessary upper limit of your long run to complete a marathon, simply because it will work as long as you meet the conditions necessary for it to work. Most people like to jump on the part about the shorter long runs and gloss over the necessary condition part.

A signficant aspect of the marathon is having sufficient energy reserves to cover 26.2 miles in one single continuous run. To do that, you must condition your body and stimulate your ability to store enough energy to do it. This will essentially be bound to your long runs. How long those runs need to be depends on how much of a depleted state you are in before you start them. Even for a 20+ miler, you will likely be starting it in a state of depletion. It's not really a 'cumulative' effect, it's a residual one...a method of clustering multiple runs together to achieve the desired effect.

It's very much a matter of choice of how you want to get to that point. Taking the route of the longer long run achieves the desired effect with less overall running than with a shorter long run.

But energy storage and usage isn't the only factor. There is also the physical conditioning required to get the body used to a few hours of high-impact activity on asphalt. It seems like a hell of a stretch to say that if a person's legs can carry them through 2.5 hours they can carry them through 4+.

This was posted on a race website. I don't understand what they are saying. Is he saying a 2.5 hour run is enough for marathon training?

I don't do long runs over 2.5 hours; F that. If I go beyond 2.5 on Sunday, I will not be recovered in time for my Tuesday workout. That is the main point to me: don't sacrifice a training week for one run. The 2.5 for me is based on some trial and error, but I expect it should be ballpark for most people.